I partly agree and partly disagree with this assessment. With respect to the latter...VanAR wrote:... Much of this, IMO, stems from environmentalists having a philosophy that the ends cannot justify the means, and so hunters are part of the problem rather than the solution...
I tend to be a the-ends-don't-justify-the-means kind of guy, myself, but 1) death and even suffering are personal but not ecological tragedies (it's a shame that people lose their loved ones, but it's an awfully good thing that people don't live forever), and 2) death and even suffering have always occurred and are always going to occur no matter how I or anyone else feels about them. So the means aren't really a relevant issue for me here, and I don't think they are for a lot of other conservationists, either.
But the ends are certainly still relevant. It is as absolute a certainty as anything else in this world that the animal over there is going to die, perhaps horribly. (I can't imagine that being eviscerated by a predator while alive and conscious is too much fun, for example.) If someone picks it up, takes it home and makes it a pet (or kills it for sport, meat or skin), death is still going to occur (though it might well be delayed, perhaps even considerably) and it might even still suffer en route (though hopefully not nearly as much as it likely would in the wild). But through its harvest there's a good possibility that the person doing the harvesting will develop a stronger connection to wildlife/wild lands. There are actually lots of hunters and fishermen who are staunch conservationists.
To my thinking, rational wildlife laws are designed to minimize (but not eliminate) suffering on behalf of animal welfare, and to prevent animal populations and their habitats from being harmed by the harvest of some of their members on behalf of conservation. When laws - or people - go beyond that, I certainly don't see them as doing it for conservation. It doesn't mean that what they are doing/espousing is wrong (or right), but just that it's not for conservation. Mind you, they might well have convinced themselves otherwise.
Sorry it bothered you, Chad, but I don't share your perspective at all. When Pecos Frank launches into Tall Tale-mode, telling larger-than-life stories about his past or present that are obviously meant only to glorify him and whatever point he's trying to make (if he's trying to make a point beyond how great he is, that is), I wouldn't believe a word he writes without solid, independent confirmation, and I don't think anyone else should, either. If you enjoy his Tall Tales then I'm happy for you, but I believe that they're disruptive at best and potentially much more harmful (if anyone is mislead by the BS he spews) at worst.chad ks wrote:Gerry,
This post was completely unnecessary...